The Sun. — London, England, 1810-07-20 00:00:00

•LAIW DEPORT. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, juty 17. LUCAS V. WILLAW. This was an anion brought by the plaintiff who had been a passenger in the Pilot, Liverpool stage coacti, belongieg to the defendant, and had his thigh broken in consequence of the coach having'broken down. Tbe plantiff alleged the injury to have taken place from the double negligence•of . the - defendant; first, in pipviding a bad axletree to his coach, and next, in employ* a careless driver. , Mr. Hickmair who was a passenger when the ac . ciOent happened, deposed; that it took place about 150 miles from London, at the foot of a steep hill, . where a rail-way intereiened the road ; rain had fallen, and the iron of the rail-way projeeted near two , inches above the surface of the road. He warned the coachman, when going down the hill, that he was driving too fast, but the coachman laughed at him, and asked him if be was frightened ; the coach jolted severely over the iron railway, and the axletree 'snapped : the plaintiff had his thigh broken. _ then they thought the accident might have been pre .vented by the driver's going more slOwly, or putting drag on his wheel; they would also . find for the plaintiff; they ~V ould 'give him whatever damages they might consider due to him, both for his surgi cal expences and personal i n j ur y. 'terdia for the plaintiff.--Dania es t201.-40s, costs. - IvLY 19. THE LATE' DIS TURBANCES WILLIAM MAINWA RING, ESQ. V. BELL AND DOBSON, This was an ac=tion brought by the plaintiff (who is Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the county of Middlesex) to recover damages for the injury which his house sustained on the night of the 6th of April, from the outrage, of the mob. ; sThe aftion was brought against the Hundred of OsSulton, in the county of Middlesex, in which Hundred' his heuse : iri Hanover-squareissituated. Mr. Serjeant .SHEPHERD stated the case on the part of the plaintiff.' It was an•aetion, he observed, founded on the Ist of George the First, which pro vided, " that if a mob unlawfully and riotously as- Taylor,. a country blacksmith, had ex- ,sembled, and wit h.foreesdemolished or polled doWn; amined the axle after the accident, it was broken or began to demolish or pull down any house; chapel, about a foot from the shoulder. barn, stable, or any other building, &c. then the Serjeant VAUGHAN" By your oath,. Sir, were Hundred in whi c h suc h h ouse, &c. was situate you not drunk whe n y ou exam i ne d it ?" should reimburse the owner." The Learned Serjeant Sir J Ath,EiMANSFIELD.--." Indeed I think brother, said, that on the night in queStion a large mob had if he was drunk you. could scarcely expea hint tore- 1 assembled, in c onsequence o f t h e S pea k er of ; the member it : you had better ask somebody else the House Of . Commons having issued his ivarrant to question." apprehend Sir Francis Burdett. Now whether 'that • The Surgeon,, who attended the plaintiff, was of t warrant was or not issued legally, that could not be opinion that, titan a curvature isr the bone, the 4 offered in palliation for the condua of the mob, in broken thigh would be always shOrter than the attacking the property of any individual. Mr. sound ,one, so that he would be lame all his life. , Mainwaring had formerly been returned Member for Serjeant SHEPHERD, as Counsel for the defendant, Middlesex, in opposition to Sir Francis Burdett, and contended, that unless there was some negligence that circumstance, it is supposed, made him one of proved against a Coach Proprietor, he was nut to be the objects of re,entment to the persons-illegally. got en ids responsible for any casual acccident which together. They prodeeded from Piccadilly, and might occur to his coaches. If such accident could were driven by the peace officers froM place to place, fairly be imputed to the Proprietor's-want of atten- until at last they came to Hanover-square, about Lion, undoubtedly he ought to suffer, but not other- h a lf-p ast e l even o ' c l ock at night, in number abut wise. It ve r y f re q u e nt ly happened that coaches, three or four hundred. He did• trot wonder that belonging to private gentlemen, made ,with the those breaking the - laws should feel animosity against greatest care, and pu rc h ase d at a grea t expence, 1 the admini s t rators o f t h e l aws . M r . Mainwaring met 'accidents which it was impossible either to fore- filled the office of Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, see Or guard against. If such was the case with ree- was beneficially employed in the service of the pub pea to them, it . was doubly probable in stagecoaches, lic in keeping the peace, and, in adMinistering the which went constant journies, and carried both lug- I criminal justice of the country, and therefore it was gage and passengers. Modern coaches were very I likely that these sort of persons-should cost off those liable, from their construction, to accidents. Every • restraints which morality and the law imposed upon one knew that since the war it was difficult to get th e m i n or d er to attac k t h at G ent l eman ' s property. as gorsi iron as formerly, an d necessar y to use even Mr. Serjeant Shepherd then detailed. the evidence what we had sparingly. (which he letended to produce), and stated, that Sir JAMES MANSFIELD.+." Indeed' I, for one, t after the appearance of the mob in the square, the know no such thing. I have even heard the con- butler of Mr. M. expressed his wish to put up lights trary. Since the war there has been much good if they would be satisfied, but they answered, " No, iron discovered in England." . d—n your lights, no! we'll not have lights, we'll Serjeant SHEPHER'D.-.•-" I .know, my Lord, a have a smack at your house !" They then com coacb-maker once gave me that as a reason . for the menced the attack, and as be should prove, did badness of a coach he made." . considerable damage to the house, by casting stone's, Sir jeme;siNflarssareen.—“ Very likely he did, brickbats, &c. at it. ti n d er th ese c i rcumstances, brother ; but you should not have believed it." be had no doubt _the Jury would find themselves Srjealit SHEPHERD declared, that kt . that be as it compelled to give in a verdict for the consequence Might, he would prove all that was necessary in .I of this abominable, he had almost said, tremendous the present instance : he would prove that not only riot ; a _riot, which, had it not been for the strong there was no - negligence imputable to Mr. \Villan, measures- taken, no man could have known where but that every dad a man was specially appointed to it would haire stopped'. The defendants in this case inspect the coaches, and- see that they were fit to had been selected because they were the High • perform their jouri ey ; if he did ci l ia,' l ie hoped the , Constabl e s o f th e H un d re d, an d as a J ury must Jury and his Lord s hip w ou ld b e o f o pi n i on .t h at his give a verdict before any rate could be raised on the rlieptsv'as not legally responsible for the effeets of , inh a bit ants . an accident which it was not in his power to pre- The admission of the defendants, that the plaintiff vent. occupied the house in .question, was then put in, Captain' Trotter was a passenger in the coach fi t om and read. London : the Coachman, in his opinion, conduEted John Ross, a 'watchman, was examined. He himself remarkably well. He attributed-the acci- I stated, that on the Gth of April, about twelve _denttentirelv- to the rail-way at the foot of the hitt.— i o'clock at night, he was alarmed by the appearance 'He examined the axle after it had been broken it of a mob on the left hand side of the square, corn-, did not seem to have suffered any former accident.— ; ing from Bond-street, there might be about 150 He was a. Sea Captain. . Before the break-doWn, the persons; they ,asked him which was Alainwaring's coach had unloaded some of the cargo. house; he told them he did not know, -that he was --, a wheelwright, proved his being em- a stranger; they went further on inquiring, ; and ployed by Mr. Willan to inspect all the coaches pre- knocked at several doors; the witness knocked at vious to their departure on a Journey;• lie inspected Mr. .M.'s door, and told the servants the Mob' was seventy in a week. If the Pilot bad appear e d a t com i ng . A t t h at time t herewas a great light in his all unsound, he would . have ordered it to be laid box ; he went to it, and a large stone was thrown aside, and have sent' anothercoach in its place at him; he put out the light. Somebody in the in- J. Short was also appointed to inspeCt the coaches: ! terim had informed them which was the house of be Was positive be inspected the Pilot, and that it i Mr. Mainwaring. They went up to it, knocked at was fit, to go any journey. (This witness was very i the doer, and Some cried " This . is Mainwaring's -1 e perplexed e t hi s ev id ence —h e saide the accident mere goes !" There was a great shouting, and,stones happened in January' though it took place in No 1. and brickbats were thrown at the windows for near vernber.) ly half an hour. ' Previous to the attack lights bad Valentine Hallam was guard to the Pilot.; it was ; been put in some of the windows. When they had quite a new coach, and bad no flaw whatever. The ; broke all the windoWs they went away. He saw driver was as good as any man on 'the road; he was the house in the Morning', the window frames and driving down the bill at the rate of seven or eight glass were broke all to pieces. .Some of the mob, miles an hour. • perceiving that he was about to spring his rattle, The evidence was here closed ; and Serjeant : exclaimed `.` Dawn anti the watchman, if he ,hav ire; replied, • makes a noise, we'll - kill him !" - They inquired for . Sir JAMES MAN3FIELD proceeded to comment On no other house than Mr. Mainwaring s. • the evidente. 111 ease a carrier took charge' of goods, John. Price, butler to Mr. Mainwaring, spoke to he was persopally responsible for theth if they should the same leas nearly; some of the mob asked him .be lost, no matter whether through his carelessness when he opened.. the door, if that was Mr. Main or not ;it he even deposited them in a place of safety, waring's -house ? He . replied that it was, and that as he thought, a n d te a t it happened they were stolen he would put up,lights, it that .would prevent them troM thence, he mould be liable. In short, the l from doing mischief; but they said—si No, we law exempted him in no case, egcept where the vi- I don't want lights, _we'll have a smack at the win .sitaiion of Providence, or the unavoidable violence of dows," He thought there were abodt. tw'o or three an enemy auerfered. With respect to a Coach Pro- hundred persons assembled.' They eacclaimed— prietor, th - e case was different—he was not reason- j" No Mainwaring, Burdett for ever." He had sible, upiess he was negligent. It was not, however, put up four lights before the mob made their a'p rieee.ssary for a piainuff to spew that a- Proprietor pearance, they threw very large stones, some Of omitted to have his coaches daily examined. If it them weighing seven or eight pounds, brickbats, appeared that on the departure cf the coach there Ike. The windows in the dining and drawing was a manliest- probabiliy that . the coach would room, and in the porter's hall were entirely broken, break down, be was also liable, to the consequences many of the frames and the wainscot in the ' hall was . of hs shiver's carelessness on the road. The present damaged, one pannel of the 'dining-room shutters complaint was of a mixed nature—it first objected was broke through, the stair-case was marked with to the weakness of the axletree, and next to the ne- stones. Hitirsell and the rest of the servants-Were gligence of the driver. -If the Jury should think, obliged to retire (he having previously called them from what they had heard, that' the axle was natu- up), in ordtr to secure their lives. Some of the' rally unfit to bear the jolt over the rail-way, which , stones were thrown the length of Is feet, jolt.wes to-be eXpeCted, because the existence of the Elizabeth Kalloway and Sarah Collier, in' the rail-way was as well know to the driver as the ex- service of .Mr. Mainwaring, deposed to the same istence of any turnpike-gate on the road, and should efrea.. have of course . been provided against, they would Mr, Joseph Wood was employed to repair the find for the plaintiff. They-had heard the driver was injury done to the house ; his -, bill amounted to going down 'the hill a t th e rat e o f sev e n or eight t 901. Gs. There wer e five or six-- sashes repaired, rules an hour, and that he was warned he was drive one entirely new ; two blinds repaired, &c. In ing too fast, but he disregarded the admeesition. If ; answer to a question from one of the Jury, he stated any thingmnre was absolutely due by the defend - ant, they tnigh find accordingly. The Jury found for the plaintiff, damages being at the rate of one per ck..nr. commission on - the sale. COURT OF LXCIIEQUER; JULY 19.. ?ROM? V-T A X.-=CAUTION, TO LANDLORDS. THE ATTORNEY-GENE R AL V.•THOMAS DICKINSON. , This iniormation was filed under the dire6liou of the Board of Taxes, at the instance of the Com missioners of the Property 'Tax at Manchester, against the defendant, who is a butcher, a nd owner of ieverAl small t enements t h ere, to recover two-pe, nalties of fifty pound for two distinal refusals to al ! , low Martha Marshall, one of his tenants, the several sums of 7s. - 6d. and 12s. the Landford'i Property Tax on a rent of 61. per annum,' which she had paid to the Colleaor, and requested the defendant to reimburse, but which he positively refused to do, telling her that he had no right to Fay the tax, that she must pay it herself, aed that if he had not his fall rent, he would immediately distrain on her goods ; and which full rent st;e accordingly paid. The faCts were proved On the evidence of the tenant, a poor widow wormin of tespedable aisear ance, and who, from the plain and simple manner in which she gave her evidence, excited a particu lar interest. It was also proved that hefore fusal , similar complaints bad been frequently made to the Commissionets - against the defendant by his other tenants, and that he had been pre% ii)irsly cau tioned against his:persisting'in title. unlawful coarse, and of his liabilty to the penaltieS. The LORD CHIEF BARON in addressing the Jury, expressed great satisfaction a.t . the Condthc.l of the Coininissioners in Irak ing made so just, an example of the defirndant. The Jury gave a . verdict fur the Crown in two peitalti,:s of (AA,' • MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. • Wednesday Aaron : Alexander, a Jew , cloaths-man, was indided for setting lire to a dWelling-houe, si tuate No. 41, Little Queen-street, fields. The pleadings were stated by Mr. j3ARRY, by which it appeared that the defenda.A rented above premises, had insured them, - and had set ti;eni on fire, with intent of defrauding certain persons Directors and Proprietors of tt.e County. Fire Office. Mr. ALLEY related the particulars of the case to the Jury. It appeared that the defendant . and ano ther Jew, of the name of Simmons, took the. lo . wer part of the house, No. 41, Little Queen -street, for the purpose of selling old cloaths and slopS ; that on the 3d of April l ast , Si mmons made an insurance at the County Office .for the sum of 3001. viz. .501. on stock in trade, and 501. on household furniture. J. T. Barber, Esq. the Managing Director- of the - Office, proved that theifire,, in his opinion, never could have occurred from accident, and also ,proved the fad of the claim being made by the prisoner for 881. 15s. 6d. for damages alleged to have-been dooe to hirn and his partner by the tire., The evidence being gone through on the patt of the Crolirc, after some objediens to evidence inge=! niously put by Mr. ANDREWS, Counsel for the pri soner, that Gentleman then addressed the Court and Jury in ,his behalf, in an able and , argumentative. speech.—Ver,dial, Guilty. A fire broke out early on Wednesday morning at a cottage in the Harrow Road, occupied by .Mrs. Phillips, which destroyed the same in about halt as hour : the greater part- of the furniture, however, was saved. A few days ago - a hawk, of the large kind, :neap Buxton, very unceremoniously dropt from the re gions of the sky, and - pops upon a weazel, which tie carried-up. &about' a minute the hawk came down, faster than he rose; the weazel having faitened at his throat, killed him in a very short time. • _ ,51 - 11 P Nkira. ORAVISAND, ' JULY . IS. Arrived—the Mary Ann,' Carrion, from Amelia Islands Swall , w; Wheatley, limn Mogadore ; Collingwood, Web ster, from lJewtotinktland; Lonitiin Packet, Holman, Three Sisters, Crosswood, , and the Wargrave, Huntley, Irani Oporto. 111K1'11.) On the t7th inst. at Hurst, Barks, the Lady of [ ottt" PrLttejuito, Esq. of a Son. On Tdesday, last, at Twickenham, the Lady of F: Q. Car., rnichael. Esq. Oa Daughter. MARRItD. On Tuesday. last, Edward Stracey,. Esq. of Parliament street, Westminster. to Miss BrZ)oltstunk, heiress or the Ire William' Brookshank, Esq. of Hach', in the County of Cheater. Nester(lay, at one o'clock, at St. George's, Hanover-square, by a special licenle from the Archbishop of Callierbury, die Hon, C harles Cecil Cope I,enkiriscni lLlebrot;l,:r to the 1, ari of Liverpool), to Miss Shuck buigh, only tiAL.,mti.i.,nd iaeirrsr of the . late S.r Francis Siauckburgil, Bart. of Shuckburga- House, Warwickshire. • The same day, at St. Margaret's, kVestminsfer, Mr; W. •Po'lock, of ,Charing-cross -aiin' Piccadilly, Sadler, to AlisS• Elizabeth Egg, of Knightshtiuge. ••• • On the 19th inat,. by 'special license, a t Wrnxt on Abbey.. in the County of 0 sctiml,_the Right Hon. th, Earl 'or nil ford, to Mias Boycott, fifth. daughter of the late Thowas Boycott, Esq. at Br i dge-Hall, Saiop. Yesterday, at Mitcham, :tr. Annan- df Brighten, to Char lotte, second daughter of Charles Everingharn, Esq . . of Mitctimn. The - same day, at Putney Church, William Baring, Esq• fourt4 son of Sir . Franci s . Baring, Bart. 'to • Faiiny, fourth daughter of John ThomsOn, Esq.- of ‘Vaverley sur rey. ' A few days ago, at ,St. lames's (Mural, Bury :St.. mund's, inMAI:, Mr. Thomas Bailey,' silversmith, of London,, to Miss A nn biting. Dlh ri( /Lb 0 YISST LONDUN: Printed by loci-1,4.RD HARRIS, or &o. 4. Martlttt•cowt, bow-Ntreet ; and Pcblished by WILLIAM A RMIG L R SCRIPPS, South Molton• street s GroFvenor tquee. • At ale SVN^OFFIGII, No, 112, Strand, wflere Adverlisoilents,,Orderr for the Paper, 'Letters for•tne Lditsr , btc. (postlaict); must ba addiessed, On the gth inst. Edward Vincent, Esq. of South Mims' Middlesex, in the 77 th year of his dge. , At Hayes, in Middlesex, l a m es Collett, Esq.. aged 55 . . On Monday- Jast, at Ectun, Northamptonshire, the infant son of H. Brett, Esq,. The Same day, .4t Clifton, Miss Mary Rice. y,ungest daughter of the late jot; Rice, d ,q. of 'I voting, Surrey. .Ji. It RDAY. 13aA: Stock, 16o* India Stock, 1,8 1 . Navy s per Cent 98* 974 -1, India Botids,l4s. 12.5.15 s pr. 1 ri,n 5 per Cettt. - Excheq. liil,s, 2s. dis. Is er. - 4, per Lent 84 83 i Oninnlitl.o i 2 i / per CI Rec.. 68 * 67* 1 Impeivii rjer Cent., r 3 pt..r Cent. Cons. ebA 63-7,a, ewis. fin p: n. 69i 69,1, 69 '3 ,- Ann. 18* 3. i6ttis , 63i 1 .~-_ .~:_ that he had done no more than what was absolutely necessary from the ravages of the mob. Mr. Wiggins, a surveyor, deposed that. the charges were proper; be surveyed the work; his chaige was 61. The case having been, closed, Mr. Serjeant SELbON addressed the Jury for - ae defendants ; they, he observed, had no wish to de ' tend the action, if it was justified in point of law, but they . felt it to be their bounden duty to see, that the parish were legally bound to pay. The Learned Serjeant did not mean to dispute the law, nor to find fault with the wholesome provisions of tlie'act, but - the Jury were to take care that the ael was not extended, nor made to fall upon persons innocent. ' There were two points for their consi deration ; one, which was the main point, was whether the anion could be maintained; if it Could, then the second point, which he did not mean to dispute, was as to the damages. He certainly knew with respea to that point, Mr. Mainwaring had not caused any repairs to be done more than what was absolutly necessary. With respeet to the law, it was made to ineuce the Hundreds to protea the interest of each other, and not to give a multiplicity of actions in cases of this nature. He contended, after referring to the words of the 4th and 6th sec tions of the. aa, that it did not co n t e mplat e , i n giv ing redress, an injury of the kind now before the Court, and instanced two cases for breaking %sin- dows, in which the decisions-of another Court had been against plaintiaS. In the. present case there was no proof that . sa brick had, been , removed or but any part of the building had been demolished, and therefore ihe Jury, were to pm a liberal con struaion upon the act. He would appeal with confidence to his Lordship aS to the law being with him ; but in case he should not be of that opinion, then he would beg his Lordship to reserve 'the point for a more solemn decision. Chief Justice, MANSFIELD asked the Counsel for the plaintiff, what they said to this objection of the Learned Serjeant, viz. that the attack was not a be 'ginning to demolish. Serjeants SHEPHERD and BEST contended' that it was: With wiped to the cases alluded to, viz. that of Burrows v. Wright, in Ist East ;and also of Reed v. Clark ; in th e . l a t ter , w hi c h ..was aalion of a similar nature, there ,was this difference : the mob who had broke the plaintiff's 'windows had done so in consequence' of his not lighting up on the occasion of Lord St. Vincent's victory—when the case came for decision Lord Kenyon had been of opinion, on that occasion, that the assemblage of persons did not amount to a species of tumultuous, rioting:, Here the case .was that the mob went with a determination to commit an injury. As to the breaking of the windows not being a demolish ing or beginning to demolish, why, it was well known that in' the criminal law, .if a man cut a pane of glass _with a felonious intent, it was a burglary. It could not, therefore, be concluded that the'win dow frames which were broke were not a part of the house; as well might it:he said that the wain scot, also damaged, was not part of it. 'Mr. Serjeant BEST submitted that the mob went for an illegal purpose. into Hanover-square, to de stroy Mr., Mainwaring's house; ,that had been proved by the evidence ; they , therefore came un der the meaning of the act, as - felons, which, in the cases cited by Mr. Serjeant SEWN, was not the fad, for there the quo anind had not been proved. • - Chief Justice MANSFIELD said, tint as it' was a question of considerable importance, he would di=. rya the Jury' to find for the plaintiff, with Übe: ty to the delendatts to enter a non-suit, supposing his opinion should be' wrong. Addressing the Jury, his Lordship observed, that the action ,was brought against the Plundred, under an Ad passed in the' reign of George I. in- consequence of the disturb. ance made when the House of Hanover succeeded to the throne of these realms. It was proved in evidence that the intention of the mob was to demolish the windows of Mr. Mainwaring's house, for when the servant said he would light up, they told him they did not want that, for they would smash the - windows. It did not appear that . they were driven away - by any force, but that -they retired when they effeCted their purpose. ' The. case therefore . clearly ca me within the words o f th e 4th an d 6th section of the Act, and might be decided instanter, mere it not that the cases alluded to had been-brought under discussion. ,His Lordship thought it would be bete ter, that as it was an important question,,it should be decided in a solemn manner before all the Judges. The Jury found a verdia for the plaintiff, da mages 1261. the point being reserved.. Mr. Mainwaring was in Court, andiat between his Counsel, Serjeants Shepherd and Best. Counsel for the plaintiff—Mr. Serjeant Shephs.rd, Mr. Serjeant Best, and Mr. Marryat ; Attornies, Messrs. Gale and Son. Counsel for the defendants, Mr. Serjeant Senor) and Mr. Adolphus; Attorney, Mr. Hussey. BROWN V. SIR GEORGE ROBINSON. This was an at - lion by the plaintiff, an at6iioneer, at Bedford, for his commission on the safe of all estate belonging to the defendant, which had been sold for 11,000 guineas. It appeared that the plain tiff had been employed by a Mr. Cole (now ,de . - ceased), who was. agent to the defendant. - The estate-was not sold at the auction, but was subse quently sold by private contract. The bill which the plaintiff first sent in to the defendant was 661. 1 4ss He however - observed, in a letter accompanying it, that this wasfar below the usual charge, winch was one per cent. and he relied upon the liberality of the defendant for something' further. Tile defendant, howeVer, was advised by his agents to refuse pay ment of this bill, on the ground of the plaithiff hav ing aEted at the sale, not, as hiS agent,- but as the agent of the . purchasers. He; however,. tendered, .201.-as payment for the trouble he had_with respect. to the auction. It was proved, on the part pt the . plaintiff; that one and a half per cent. was the usual charge of the principal auctioneers in London for t tie sale of estates above i 0,0001% in value; and that he had a considerable deal of trouble about this sale. Sir JAMES MANSFIELD. left it to the Jury to say whether,any thing was due to • the Plaintiff beiicles his. bill of 661. t-4s.' The bill was generany,conclu sive of this claim of the phint,tl; but it ti,e) tliought. - • • • • . _' ' r. (; I Lei St;